Re: So, we need a topic...Lets try this?
Posted By: Seraph (adsl-66-120-160-206.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net)
Date: 5/26/2003 at 7:32 p.m.
In Response To: Re: So, we need a topic...Lets try this? (Martel)
: Hm. Perhaps it would help if you made your own, personal
: definition of the word 'evil'. Personally, I try to
: avoid it generally, because so many people who use the
: word have very little idea exactly what they're
: talking about. If you were to push me, I'd define
: 'evil' as 'generally disposed to act in favour of
: oneself rather than in favour of others'. Under which
: definition a heck of a lot of us could be classed as
: evil. But hey, there you have it.
I won't question that as an objective definition of evil. I agree with it, in fact. Otherwise, we get into defining Evil by someone's personal standards (Sex=evil? Sacrifice of the weak to appease the gods= good?) and we don't really want to be that partisan on something -so- abstract.
Hm. And I think there's a line somewhere in 'Wicked' that goes something along the lines of 'In general, people who
: acknowledge themselves to be evil are morally better
: than quite a large number who consider themselves to
: be good'.
There's food for thought there. The problem is, what do those who consider themselves evil but are acknowledged (correctly) to be good fit as?
: Heh. Vigante Jesus! He goes out in the dead of night to
: hunt down the wickedest of criminals and forgive them!
LOL. Yea! Go VJ!
: I wouldn't go so far to say that, but that is a good
: point. However much governments may preach about not
: 'taking the law into your own hands', the question
: still stands: if I'm a legislator who sentences
: someone to death, is is so much better than if I'd
: been a vigilante and killed them with my own hands?
: When you get down to it, the only essential difference
: is that we're supposed to trust the legislator's
: judgement more than we trust the vigilante's.
Since I don't trust anyone more than myself (That is, I don't trust anyone has a better right than I do, and my right is pretty damned limited at best) to judge that someone "deserves to die", how does that work?
There's a movie... "A time to kill" I think the title is, that addresses this I think. Its a very hard question to answer, if you truely give a damn about human life, to decide if someone deserve to die.
Incidently, in my opinion...deserves to die means that the person is less harmful to people (Screw soicity, people) dead, than they would be if they were still alive, for they may do actions that would be more detrimental to people than it would be for us to decide they should die. (In other words, mass murderers, traitors [presumably], rapists [opinion]...people who inflict grevious suffering on others and are more than willing, as well as more than likely to do so again.)
: Oh, btw, if you're interested in this kind of stuff, I'd
: recommend reading 'Wicked' (can't remember the auther.
: The same guy who did 'Confessions of an ugly
: stepsister') and/or 'Grunts' by Mary Gentle. Both of
: which are pretty good books in their own right, as
Oh good. -More- books on my to read list. Thanks though, if the list gets long enough I'll wind up actually getting some of the books.
Thanks for your thoughts, too.
Ethics can be an incredibly touchy subject, but there's always a banquet of food for thought in well done arguements.
Messages In This Thread
Gothmog (ool-43562621.dyn.optonline.net) -- 5/23/2003 at 2:06 a.m.
- Re: hey
Zandervix (cache-rc01.proxy.aol.com) -- 5/23/2003 at 2:49 a.m.
- Re: hey
sumone (dial-209-148-113-171.sonic.net) -- 5/24/2003 at 5:39 a.m.
- Re: hey
Superfoborg (term1-6.vta.west.net) -- 5/23/2003 at 6:55 a.m.
- Re: hey
Gothmog (ool-43562621.dyn.optonline.net) -- 5/23/2003 at 9:14 p.m.
- Re: hey
Doom (18.104.22.168) -- 5/27/2003 at 4:38 p.m.
For your own future enjoyment, please report any major forum abusers or cgi errors so we can remedy the problem. If you have any questions email us.